Evolution has been Disproven

How odd. Many major creationist sites claim that life arose from non-life (by the action of God) and that diversity arose after that (by modification within kinds) by natural processes. They just disagree on the degree of modification.Another view is taken by the majority of Christians (and individuals of other faiths). That is, God caused the raise from non-life (either directly or establishing a universe in which it would happen) and then allowed His laws to unfold through organic evolution.You logic has a hole in it. Life could arise by natural or supernatural processes but that does not force it to diversify by the same processes that caused it to arise. Why should they be tied that tightly together.If life did arise by supernatural processes then yes, I agree, the possiblitiy of the diversification by supernatural processes at least becomes a possibility. However it is not required.Also, while we don't know the details of how life arose (by whatever process) we do know that the diversity (or at least a lot of it) [i]can/i arise by natural processes. This is agreed to by many creationists as noted above. Somehow we got from 1,000's of "kinds" 4500 years ago (to make the ark work out) to 1,000,000's of species sometime back around 2 or 3 thousand years later. Therefore even if life arose by supernatural means lots of diversity happened by natural means.

NosyNed please try to use what I post in context. God creating life is not life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.Please provide a reference that supports that the majority of Christians adhere to your statement. I have always observed the contrary- that the majority hold to a special creation. That being the diversity arose from the originally created kinds.NosyNed:
If life did arise by supernatural processes then yes, I agree, the possiblitiy of the diversification by supernatural processes at least becomes a possibility. However it is not required.John Paul:
Lol! No supernatural processes are required. Just the design to evolve. And yes if life was designed to do so it could evolve/ vary very rapidly under specific conditions. Also many species were not required aboard the Ark. For specifics please read "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe. He places less than 16000 animals aboard the Ark- insects and aquatic animals not among them.

Ya Rei I have this argument before. Evolutionists try to distance themselves from abiogenesis for obvious reasons.Again why would anyone infer life's diversity arose from purely naturalistic processes (i.e. not designed) if it didn't arise by them? The inference becomes no more than a belief- which is what the theory of evolution is anyway- a belief that the diversity of life owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. As if errors could lead to the diversity- evidence please...

Ah, so you are an evolutionist, then? After all evolution is the only way to get from 16,000 animals to 80 billion species. Actually since you're talking about 79 billion new species in 3000 years you're really a kind of super-evolutionist, I guess...

No crashfrog I am not an evolutionist. I was but I grew out of it. The type of "evolution" I am talking about does not require any new genetic information whereas the type of evolution portrayed by the theory of evolution requires quite a bit of new genetic information to arise.Again I said nothing about a timeline. Please stop trying to pin one on me. Thanks.

So, you don't think you need new information for bacteria to digest nylon? You don't think you need new information for a single dog-like ancestor pair to give rise to wolves, Basset hounds, jackals, and hyenas?Well, come to think of it, I don't think you do, either. I don't think there's any information in DNA at all. Just chemical structure. And there's absolutely no physical law that prevents the random creation of new chemical structures. Oh, I'm sorry. Since you were promoting Woodmorappe's model I assumed you were using Woodmorappe's timeline. If you're going to pick and choose from models, though, you might make that a little more clear.And you might as we answer the question: how long do you think all this evolution (since that's what it is; new species arising) took?

Bacteria evolving into bacteria does not help your case. Neither do the variations of wolves & dogs. You need eyes from the eyeless, bones from the boneless, limbs from the limbless and many other structures there were not there at one point in time.As for Woodmorappe I don't remember reading about a timeline in his book, but it has been a few years.How long did it take? We have already observed a new species of mosquito arising in 40 years. We have seen phenotypical changes in well less than that- differences caused by geological isolation. However in each case the organism is still basically the same.

I assume then that you'd accept organisms with primitive eyes, primitive skeletal structures, and primitive limbs as evidence for evolution, then?After all, you wouldn't be the kind of guy who would ask for a certain type of evidence and claim it isn't evidence at all when presented with it, would you? Surely you wouldn't be that dishonest? What the hell does that even prove? At some level, all life is basically the same - it all relies on carbon chemistry, uses homochiral amino acids, catalyzes chemical reations to support life processes.You'll have a hard time convincing me that a jackal and a chihuahua are "basically the same" without criteria that can be used to prove that humans and chimpanzees are "basically the same" as well.This is why nobody but the ignorant take creationists like you seriously. You handwave away things that scientifically, you need to quantify. How similar is "basically the same"? How can you argue from "basically the same" if that can mean whatever you decide it to mean?

Uh, crash, you're out by about 3 or so orders of magnitudeOff the top of my head the estimates for species are about 10 million.It is still pretty fast evolution though. Really, really fast!

Unfortunately for you, your argument is false. We do have evidence that natural processes are rsponsible for the diversification of life. So what you are really saying is:"Why is evolution tied to abiogenesis ? Because creationists want an excuse to ignore the evidence for evolution"Which certainly seems to be the truth.

Is it? I've heard a lot of numbers, I guess. They're all estimates, pretty much. But there's certainly not less than 10 million, anyway.

quote:

---

Mammuthus, I wish to clarify something about my chirality point. You state "once the first molecule was formed" referring to a replicator, such as DNA, but I ask how the first molecule was formed with specific chirality.

---

quote:

---

Okay, fair question. Try this on for size: Bailey, JM 1998 RNA-directed amino acid homochirality FASEB Journal 12:503-507

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenon of L-amino acid homochirality was analyzed on the basis that protein synthesis evolved in an environment in which ribose nucleic acids preceded proteins, so that selection of L-amino acids may have arisen as a consequence of the properties of the RNA molecule. Aminoacylation of RNA is the primary mechanism for selection of amino acids for protein synthesis, and models of this reaction with both D- and L-amino acids have been constructed. It was confirmed, as observed by others, that the aminoacylation of RNA by amino acids in free solution is not predictably stereoselective. However, when the RNA molecule is constrained on a surface (mimicking prebiotic surface monolayers), it becomes automatically selective for the L-enantiomers. Conversely, L-ribose RNA would have been selective for the D-isomers. Only the 2' aminoacylation of surface-bound RNA would have been stereoselective. This finding may explain the origin of the redundant 2' aminoacylation still undergone by a majority of today's amino acids before conversion to the 3' species required for protein synthesis. It is concluded that L-amino acid homochirality was predetermined by the prior evolution of D-ribose RNA and probably was chirally directed by the orientation of early RNA molecules in surface monolayers. (emphasis added)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

So, given preexisting homochirality of RNA (and some particular conditions) homochirality of amino acids could occur. That doesn’t address the question of how homochirality arose.In addition, no mention is made of the amino acids polymerizing, so they appear to just be individual, free amino acids: that is, bonded to ribonucleotides but not to each other. Hence, no proteins or even polypeptides.

quote:

---

Mammuthus, I wish to clarify something about my chirality point. You state "once the first molecule was formed" referring to a replicator, such as DNA, but I ask how the first molecule was formed with specific chirality.

---

quote:

---

The same way they all do except without a protein catalyst.

---

Wrong. The diagram you showed includes protein catalysts implicitly. Under non-enzymatic reactions carried out using racemic mixtures, both enantiomers of ribose are incorporated into growing chains leading to enantiomeric cross inhibition and termination of chain growth.By the way, another reason we can tell that your diagram uses some kind of catalyst is that 5’-activated RNA nucleotides tend to form "incorrect" bonds spontaneously: the two nucleotides preferentially bond between the 5’ carbon of one nucleotide and the 5’ carbon of the other; then between the 2' of one and the 5' of the other; and third, as in biological RNA, between the 3' and 5' carbons.Also, triphosphates are not what OOL researchers typically use when working with ribonucleotides.****************************
Off the topic, but I was at first confused by the diagrams. All diagrams I have seen of RNA/DNA show the 3’ carbon on the left of the 2’ carbon. It’s as if the diagrams are mirror-reversed from left to right. It took a few seconds for me to reorient.***************************
Gee, looks like I was more thrown off that I thought. I just noticed that the diagram shows "RNA polymerase", the biological enzyme that synthesizes RNA polynucleotides.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 12-18-2003]

Evolution does require life to come from non-life. If life was already here then who made it. The computer your sitting in front of had a designer; I think we all agree on that. If you see a painting you know there was a painter. If you see a creation there must be a creator. Evolutionists can not answer one very important question. And that is where did TIME, SPACE and MATTER come from. If you have matter but no space, where did you put it. If you have space and matter, but no time when did you put it. The Bible answers those questions in the first verse. Gen. 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In the begining (that's when) God created the heavens and the earth (that's what).

I see what you are saying - God must have had a creator. Personally I don't believe in a god or gods but if you must go down that road, that's a very sensible position to take.